ArticleJMIR formative research2025
Comparing ChatGPT and DeepSeek for Assessment of Multiple-Choice Questions in Orthopedic Medical Education: Cross-Sectional Study.
Article in JMIR formative research, 2025. The graph could read no effect estimate from its abstract, so it casts no vote on the map. An erratum has been issued. Cited by 5 papers, 1 of them a synthesis that pooled it.
What it found
Each row is one number read from the abstract, on the scale the paper reported it, with its interval. Left of the dashed line favours the treatment, right favours the comparator. Under each row is the sentence it came from. New to these charts? A ten-minute tutorial.
The abstract states no effect estimate the extractor could read, or names no intervention and outcome on the map, so this paper lights no cell and moves no belief. It is still indexed, cited and linked below.
The trial behind it
Trials whose registry record cites this paper, or whose number appears in the abstract. A trial that started after this paper was published is citing it as background, not reporting it.
Neither the registry nor the abstract names a trial number. If this is a trial report, that itself is worth knowing.
Who cites it
5 citing papers in PubMed, 1 synthesis or guideline pooled it.
- The effectiveness of GAI-assisted teaching methods in medical education: a systematic review and meta-analysis.Frontiers in public health · 2026Pooled it
- Applications of DeepSeek in Medicine: Bibliometric Analysis and Scoping Review.Journal of medical Internet research · 2026Article
- Authors' Reply: Critical Limitations in Comparing ChatGPT and DeepSeek for Orthopedic Assessment.JMIR formative research · 2026Article
- Critical Limitations in Comparing ChatGPT and DeepSeek for Orthopedic Assessment.JMIR formative research · 2026Article
- Correction: Comparing ChatGPT and DeepSeek for Assessment of Multiple-Choice Questions in Orthopedic Medical Education: Cross-Sectional Study.JMIR formative research · 2026Article
Corrections and comments
- Erratum issued
Authors and funding
4 authors.
Funding
No grant is acknowledged in the PubMed record.
Abstract
Background: Multiple-choice questions (MCQs) are essential in medical education for assessing knowledge and clinical reasoning. Traditional MCQ development involves expert reviews and revisions, which can be time-consuming and subject to bias. Large language models (LLMs) have emerged as potential tools for evaluating MCQ accuracy and efficiency. However, direct comparisons of these models in orthopedic MCQ assessments are limited. Objective: This study compared the performance of ChatGPT and DeepSeek in terms of correctness, response time, and reliability when answering MCQs from an orthopedic examination for medical students. Methods: This cross-sectional study included 209 orthopedic MCQs from summative assessments during the 2023-2024 academic year. ChatGPT (including the "Reason" function) and DeepSeek (including the "DeepThink" function) were used to identify the correct answers. Correctness and response times were recorded and compared using a χ2 test and Mann-Whitney U test where appropriate. The two LLMs' reliability was assessed using the Cohen κ coefficient. The MCQs incorrectly answered by both models were reviewed by orthopedic faculty to identify ambiguities or content issues. Results: ChatGPT achieved a correctness rate of 80.38% (168/209), while DeepSeek achieved 74.2% (155/209; P=.04). ChatGPT's Reason function also outperformed DeepSeek's DeepThink function (177/209, 84.7% vs 168/209, 80.4%; P=.12). The average response time for ChatGPT was 10.40 (SD 13.29) seconds, significantly shorter than DeepSeek's 34.42 (SD 25.48) seconds (P<.001). Regarding reliability, ChatGPT demonstrated an almost perfect agreement (κ=0.81), whereas DeepSeek showed substantial agreement (κ=0.78). A completely false response was recorded in 7.7% (16/209) of responses for both models. Conclusions: ChatGPT outperformed DeepSeek in correctness and response time, demonstrating its efficiency in evaluating orthopedic MCQs. This high reliability suggests its potential for integration into medical assessments. However, our results indicate that some MCQs will require revisions by instructors to improve their clarity. Further studies are needed to evaluate the role of artificial intelligence in other disciplines and to validate other LLMs.
Indexed as
Identifiers
What OpenQuestion holds
Registered trials
Read under generation 80e0d062 · epoch 390. Bibliography from PubMed, PubMed Central and OpenAlex; grants from NIH RePORTER; trial links from ClinicalTrials.gov; estimates, votes and beliefs from the OpenQuestion graph.